OK, I just decided what’s going on my Christmas cards.
That’s the spirit! Retaliate in kind; or better still, escalate! Send your Kinkade-enabling associates an envelope containing nothing but glitter, and a plain white index card that simply reads, “Merry Christmas from Rip Taylor!!!” They’ll be vacuuming up traces of your holiday greeting for months.
Wow. That side-by-side comparison of the Water Tower paintings is … umm … illuminating. I had no idea that Kinkade was actually a decent painter at one time.
I’ll second that. The 1998 painting is nice, even if it looks like he was trying too hard. The 2004 painting has all the depth and subtlety of a model made out of Legos.
Rip Taylor. :rolleyes: I’m in this waaay too deep if I’m expected to impersonate Rip Taylor. I’m not even sure I’d impersonate Rip Taylor if Sarah Silverman sat on my face in her bare feet.
I like “Holiday Gathering” too. Instead of saying, “this cloying kitsch-fest of a picture, execrable in so many ways I can’t beging to count them,” how about explaining to us subliterates why it’s so awful.
I’ll try, but I’ll probably fail.
Technically, it’s solid. Good composition that leads your eye through the painting. Good use of repeated shapes. Balanced well. Interesting colors (though they hurt my eyes).
As realism goes, there are incongruous things that would never happen in real life. But if that were the only criteria for art, then we’d have to throw out many great works on that basis.
It’s just so very twee. Instead of drawing me in with a genuine sense of Kinkade’s world, I feel like I’m looking at a collection of cute items with no unifying purpose.
WARNING: Profanity coming up.
I remember years ago reading some really bad porn. A typical passage might be “He fucked his fuck rod into her slutty fuck hole and fucked her fuck pot with throbbing hot clitty cock suck fuck orgasm boner ejaculation jism.” It failed to be erotic in any way because it was nothing but a collection of buzzwords. It had no syntax. It told no story. There was no internal logic.
To me this painting is much the same, except substitute “cute puppy dog” for “fuck”, and “I wuv you” for “throbbing.”
Putting aside the dubious proposition that a painting has to tell a story, this painting clearly does tell a story: It’s a holiday gathering at the house pictured.
Try not to think of “story” in such a literal sense.
Me too. It’s given me a real desire to see if I can download some pixie porn, though.
In college, I was friends with a really hot girl who was unfortunately very twee in her outlook and preferences. I was never able to get the meatheads in my dorm to understand why I would not “Do” her. Your quote comes much closer to explaining it than I ever could.
And just think about how long the poor dog had to stand there like that while Kinkade painted the picture.
I think it was someone on this board who pointed out that Kinkade’s houses look like a flare has been set off in every room. This one is no exception.
One of my criticisms of this painting was going to be that the porchlight was as strong as mid-day sunlight, but I’ve known people with porchlights like that. I didn’t know them at the turn of the century, of course.
I’m thinking of that scene in How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days where Kate Hudson puts teddy bears and raggedy anns all over her BF’s apartment. Is that what we’re talking about?
Yup. She actually said, “Goodness gracious!” when startled.